He died after a Challenger 2 tank was hit by another Challenger 2 tank. Trooper David Clarke, 19, of Littleworth, Staffordshire, also died during the incident.

Soldiers Dan Twiddy, of Stamford, Lincolnshire, and Andy Julien, of Bolton, Greater Manchester, were badly hurt in the incident, said lawyers.

Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up.

Similar explosions claimed the lives of Private Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, in February 2006, and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, in August 2007, lawyers say.

The issues before the Supreme Court were originally considered at the High Court and then by the Court of Appeal.

In June 2011 a High Court judge in London said relatives could bring negligence claims but not claims under human rights legislation.

In October 2012 appeal judges came to the same conclusions.

Relatives say the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives, and should pay compensation.

The MoD says decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders.

The Supreme Court justices analysed three central legal issues:

Whether British soldiers killed during military operations abroad were within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of Article 1 – which protects the right to life – of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Whether the MoD owed a duty to the deceased soldiers pursuant to Article 2 – which imposes a duty on authorities to protect the right to life by law - of the ECHR.

Whether complaints of negligence are covered by the doctrine of combat immunity and whether it would be fair to impose a duty of care on the MoD.

Shubhaa Srinivasan, from law firm Leigh Day, who represents all the Challenger claimants, said: “We are extremely pleased with the decision.

“The highest court in the land has now ruled the MoD, as employer, must accept that it owes a duty of care to properly equip service personnel who go to war.

“We have constantly argued that the MoD’s position is morally and legally indefensible.

“The MoD argument that if they accept a duty of care it would inhibit decisions on the battlefield or undermine morale and military discipline seems to defy logic.

“We argue that morale can only be improved if the Army accepts this duty of care and does everything in its formidable powers to reduce the risks for service personnel on the battlefield.”

Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, who also represented relatives and works for law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said after today's ruling: “I think what they have established is what seems to many families is common sense – that soldiers have human rights, and they do remain within the jurisdiction of the UK, and they don't lose those because they are on the battlefield.''